Relative army strengths of the Great Houses

[thelittledragonthatcould]

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well now, that seems to me like a rather long winded way of agreeing to a lot of my points above.

It was all there in the first post I made an you refused to read. Honestly, it is like walking on eggshells when it comes to you and the North. This persecution complex you have in regards to the North really suffocates any room for discussion.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

By saying that Dorne can project more of its strength beyond its borders than the North can (which we all agree with), you are saying that Dorne must be able to project more than 30k men, or else the North's total potential strength will be significantly greater than Dorne's, thus nullifying George's placement of them at more or less the same level.

No. I am not saying that. You really need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I am saying that within the North the Northmen would be able to raise more men than the Dornish could in Dorne but due to the short distance Dorne has to the other kingdoms a larger percentage of their troops could travel to a Southern Kingdom than a Northern army could.

Thus they have a similar amount of military numbers outside of their respective regions but the North would have more inside its borders.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

The idea that Doran was referring to some 300 year old breakdown of power rather than to the current state of affairs is rather ridiculous, given the context. He was clearly referring to the populations as they stand today, else his statement is not relevant to the discussion.

How is it clear? "If? The word is when. Dorne is the least populous of the Seven Kingdoms."

If he has said Westeros it would be clear, he does not. He calls it the seven kingdoms so no, it is not clear given that there more than seven kingdoms in Westeros.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the idea that Torhenn was able to raise more men than the North can today, that doesn't really hold water. Robb marched 20k beyond the Neck in haste, and during Harvest time.

How is is in haste? Robb spent longer raising his army than Tywin or Edmure did.

And yes it was harvest time, we know from the Umbers and Karstarks that they suffered for this reason.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin himself noted these factors as reasons for his reduced host size.

lol  no he does not. At no point does he say that Robb had reduced numbers due to this. You once again are jumping to conclusions in a rush to get to you magical 50k Northern army number.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

There is no reason why Robb could not have raised another 10k men if his timeframe was different,

So why didn't he? Tywin had Stafford raise an extra army why did Robb not ask Rodrik to do the same? He had no idea that Theon was going to betray him, why not ask for this extra 10k?

Robb, Cat and Rodrik all have a better idea of the numbers the North should be able to field. None suggest this extra 10k army to be sent South. And the reason for that should be obvious, the North can't sustain that kind of army outside of its borders and needs some military in the North to maintain some kind of peace.

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Can't respond to everything now as I'm on my phone, but the biggest assumption in your last post is that you assume that George referred to externally projectable strength only when he compared the North, Vale and Dorne. That however is not what he said. He said they were roughly similar in the force they could raise. Whether inside or outside their borders is immaterial.

It is their total strength he was referring to, not the number they can project to Kings Landing, or Oldtown or point x or y. Which point do you pick in any case, to assess projectable strength?

His point about the time it takes to gather the force in the North proves this, as this provides the context that he was referring to the force they could gather at Winterfell, ( or Sunspear and the Eyrie in the case of the other two kingdoms).

[Nyrhex]

Reach - ~100k.

Westerlands - ~50k.

North - 35-40k.

Riverlands/Vale/Stormlands - 30-35k.

Dorne - 25-30k.

Iron Islands - ~25k.

Crownlands (including Dragonstone) - ~15-20k.

[dreem24]

Reading about this now makes me think the starks were kinda shitty rulers i mean you have such a large land and you do nothing with it. 

Westerlands gold and trade and who knows what.

The reach has food dont do as they say they'll starve you.

The north has ? Land ?  Resources if so 300 years since that king has bend the knee and relative peace and they have done nothing no new houses no new castles,fleets towns....

 

Reach 80k-100k

Westerlands 40k-60k

Stormlands 30k-60k

Riverlands 30k-35k

Vale 25k-30k

North 20k-25k

Dorne 15k-20k

 

That's my assumption at least.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

3 hours ago, dreem24 said:

Reading about this now makes me think the starks were kinda shitty rulers i mean you have such a large land and you do nothing with it. 

Westerlands gold and trade and who knows what.

The reach has food dont do as they say they'll starve you.

The north has ? Land ?  Resources if so 300 years since that king has bend the knee and relative peace and they have done nothing no new houses no new castles,fleets towns....

 

Reach 80k-100k

Westerlands 40k-60k

Stormlands 30k-60k

Riverlands 30k-35k

Vale 25k-30k

North 20k-25k

Dorne 15k-20k

 

That's my assumption at least.

The Starks have had to fight waves of Wildlings, Kings Beyond the Wall, destructive winters and rebellions. They've also gone through successions crises since Aegon came.

Anyways the closest thing we have to canon says that

The Dornish- 25 K

The North- around 45 k

riverlands- 45 k

the vale- 45 k

the Westerlands-45 k

The iron islands- 20 k

The reach -100 k

The North has silver, wool, hides and timber  btw

[lyannaisalive]

the Vale is the only region whose army hasnt seen war during this time. Arryn has the largest "united army" after the tyrells, although events would suggest the aren't as united as it would seem. There were many reasons Little finger didn't want the Vale going to war.

[Lord Varys]

We should all keep in mind that numbers cannot be stable. The population of Westeros at the time of the Conquest isn't the same as the population of Westeros in 128 AC after two great Targaryen kings had given the Realm eighty years of peace and prosperity.

Winter in combination with and and/or epidemics should cull the population of the land to very high degree. Just take the Dance and its aftermath as an example. It was the worst war during the history of the Targaryen reign - and perhaps even the worst war in the history of Westeros - but the catastrophe did not end in 131 AC when Aegon III took the throne. The war would have destroyed much food provisions for winter, and the winter that began in 130 AC continued for six years. In addition, the entirety of Westeros was apparently devastated by the Winter Fever which carried many prominent people away everywhere in the Realm (we know of deaths in White Harbor and KL).

Westeros could easily have lost half its population - first to the war, then to cold and starvation, and finally to the Winter Fever - when Aegon III finally began ruling in his own right.

Another example would be the Great Spring Sickness. It hit the entire Realm aside from the Vale and Dorne, and it is quite clear that all the regions effected by this plague would be able to field significantly less men after the Great Spring Sickness than before - and this actually for quite a long time depending how many boys/young men and fertile young girls/women were carried away by the sickness. If that percentage was exceptionally high then it would take long years before the population would recover. I mean, in the real middle ages the loss of entire villages and cities to the Black Death would severely effect the military potential of those regions, too. Army sizes would inevitably be much smaller if we assume the society is still capable of waging a war.

Just think about how many people died of the Great Spring Sickness in King's Landing alone. Perhaps the plague was worst in cities but we don't know how many people died in rural regions, so this is really difficult to say. But the fact that Dorne and the Vale closed all its borders suggests that the Great Spring Sickness spread everywhere where people traveled, so you wouldn't be safe in the remotest hut unless you had no contact at all to the outside world (and that's not very likely).

Aside from war and unusual epidemics like the Winter Fever or the Great Spring Sickness the North should be the place where the numbers of the population fluctuate the most depending whether there is a good or a bad winter. A long winter will inevitably cull the population to a stronger degree than a short winter. Children and old people would suffer the hardest in winters in any case, and if the winter is long and hard then an entire generation might not see the next spring. We know that if things get really hard mothers kill their children (to spare them the inevitable death of starvation and to secure the survival of the family) and old men go 'off hunting'.

In addition we also have to keep in mind that war and conflict might have affected the population statistics of the southern kingdoms more than those of the North prior to the Conquest. Kingdoms like the Riverlands and the Reach would have known a lot of war, and there is little reason to assume that enemy kingdoms would be willing to sell grain and food to its neighbor if they had just fought a war in the past autumn. Any war in autumn which affect the stored food stores and the last harvest could have had devastating effects on the population of such a kingdom in the next winter - especially if that winter lasted for 5-6 years. One has also to keep in mind that war sees a lot of houses and buildings destroyed, resulting in a growing number of homeless people in the years thereafter. If war is fought in autumn or extends into winter (like the Dance did, for example) all those homeless people will inevitably die of the cold even if there would technically be enough food left to feed them for some time.

Perhaps the North had had a great time for decades or an entire century prior to the Conquest, explaining why Torrhen Stark was able and willing to raise an army of 30,000 men. If there had been many mild winters, little internal unrest, and little to no attempts by the Southron kingdoms to attack the North they would have had little to no losses to war - and only minor to standard losses in winter.

But we know that the history of the North in the last hundred years was not exactly favorable. The Starks had losses in two major wars (Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion), and prior to that there was a series of many incursions and tragedies in the last century as well about which effects on the population we know little about (the Great Spring Sickness, Dagon Greyjoy's attacks, the Skagos Rebellion, Raymun Redbeard's invasion, the six-year-winter from 230-236 AC, etc.).

Thanks to the two recent wars Robb might have had less men able to fight at his disposal than Ned had back when he called his banners 282 AC. After all, many childless men did not return to father sons of their own.

Vice versa, the Reach seems to have gotten pretty much unscathed out of the last two wars prior to the War of the Five Kings, potentially explaining how the hell Renly could raise such a huge host. But back in the day of the Conquest neither the Gardeners nor the Lannisters might have been able to feed as many people as both regions later could feed under the Targaryens (because the endless warfare continuously destroyed much of their fertile farmland and prevented them from storing as much food for winter as they could in later days).

Those things do matter. It makes no sense to use the numbers of the armies during the Conquest to try to determine the military potential of the various regions three centuries later. And the assumption that the numbers remain static doesn't make any sense. Not since George introduced variables like epidemics, hard winters, and starvation due to a lack of food.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

snip

Your points about the Reach make an incredible amount of sense when we consider how dominant they seem in this war but less so in previous ones and their history before the Targaryens.

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Your points about the Reach make an incredible amount of sense when we consider how dominant they seem in this war but less so in previous ones and their history before the Targaryens.

Well, I've been preaching this thing for quite some time now, glad that somebody is finally listening.

We know that the Hightowers didn't send any troops to join the Gardeners and the Lannisters on the Field of Fire but still - if Mern IX and Loren I had raised armies based on the numbers of the main series they should have been able to raise as big as Renly's was, perhaps even bigger considering the military potential of House Lannister in the present day.

Therefore we should best assume they weren't, in fact, strong enough to pull this off.

In general Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion seemed to have effected mostly the people actually fighting in the war (i.e. the armies) not so much the common people. There are no reports about deliberate attempts to terrorize the smallfolk, destroy villages and holdfasts, or to burn crops of the enemy. But if such things happened then the Riverlands would have suffered the most, possibly explaining their reduced strength during the War of the Five Kings (Edmure made some crappy decisions but you never get the impression that the Riverlords were a match for the Lannisters).

And Lannisport and the Western coast was apparently not raided by Balon during the Greyjoy Rebellion. According to Yandel, he destroyed the Lannister fleet but didn't pull a Dalton Greyjoy and actually sacked Lannisport or attacked the Lords of the West close to the coast. This means most losses during the Greyjoy Rebellion would involve those people actually fighting in the war - the majority being dead Ironborn, of course, but the Northmen, Stormlanders/Crownlanders, and Rivermen fighting in the war would also have had their share of losses.

Whether the Lannisters actually sent men to fight at Robert's side in that war isn't really clear yet. One would expect they did considering the fact that Tywin had been attacked directly and Cersei was married to Robert - but then, perhaps Robert deliberately kept Tywin out of the whole thing because he was pissed that the man allowed Balon to burn his war fleet.

But back to the other topic:

We cannot stress the effect enough the unification of the Realm would have had on the population statistics. The Iron Throne would have organized efforts to deliver food to regions suffering from droughts, bad harvests, or the devastating effects on hard winters. With the Seven Kingdoms being one Realm it would have been much easier for the North to get food from the Reach or the Vale (which would have been impossible during the times of the long war between the Starks and the Arryns).

I'm pretty sure the population grew rapidly after the Conquest. The reign of the Conqueror was mostly peaceful, and the First Dornish War should not have effected the northern regions all that much (Riverlands, West, Vale, and North), and after Maegor's terror regime was over there were eighty years of peace and prosperity. The southern regions could easily have doubled their population numbers in those years, and even the North may have a population increase if we assume there weren't many hard winters in those years.

The fact that the Northmen could participate in the Dance to the degree they did actually attests to that. We know that Cregan Stark's intention was to get rid off additional mouths in the common winter. He wanted to use the war as a means to reduce his people. That could be a hint that the Northmen had been grown to populous in the last decades for their crops and game to actually support during a very long winter. If the population of the North had reached a critical mass then a very hard winter might actually not be dealt with the usual way. Entire families might not be so willing to go 'off hunting' to ensure that (perhaps) some of the other villagers may have a chance to make it to spring. Not to mention that the war that would inevitably be fought in the South would make it unlikely/impossible that there would remain enough food down there to support the people in the North.

At the end of the reign of Daeron II the population of Westeros might have reached the pre-Dance level again considering that there were no major wars between the Dance and the Great Spring Sickness aside from the First Blackfyre Rebellion (and we don't know how many people died during that war).

And up to Robert's Rebellion everything seems to have been pretty fine since the six-year-winter (unless some of the rebellions during the reign of Aegon V were pretty devastating).

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I've been preaching this thing for quite some time now, glad that somebody is finally listening.

We know that the Hightowers didn't send any troops to join the Gardeners and the Lannisters on the Field of Fire but still - if Mern IX and Loren I had raised armies based on the numbers of the main series they should have been able to raise as big as Renly's was, perhaps even bigger considering the military potential of House Lannister in the present day.

Therefore we should best assume they weren't, in fact, strong enough to pull this off.

In general Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion seemed to have effected mostly the people actually fighting in the war (i.e. the armies) not so much the common people. There are no reports about deliberate attempts to terrorize the smallfolk, destroy villages and holdfasts, or to burn crops of the enemy. But if such things happened then the Riverlands would have suffered the most, possibly explaining their reduced strength during the War of the Five Kings (Edmure made some crappy decisions but you never get the impression that the Riverlords were a match for the Lannisters).

And Lannisport and the Western coast was apparently not raided by Balon during the Greyjoy Rebellion. According to Yandel, he destroyed the Lannister fleet but didn't pull a Dalton Greyjoy and actually sacked Lannisport or attacked the Lords of the West close to the coast. This means most losses during the Greyjoy Rebellion would involve those people actually fighting in the war - the majority being dead Ironborn, of course, but the Northmen, Stormlanders/Crownlanders, and Rivermen fighting in the war would also have had their share of losses.

Whether the Lannisters actually sent men to fight at Robert's side in that war isn't really clear yet. One would expect they did considering the fact that Tywin had been attacked directly and Cersei was married to Robert - but then, perhaps Robert deliberately kept Tywin out of the whole thing because he was pissed that the man allowed Balon to burn his war fleet.

Not that many people ought to have died in either of those wars. mainly because they were so short. Both the Greyjoy Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion only lasted for around a year each, which is barely anything. 

Westeros in general seems to have been rather peaceful compared to the real medieval world, actually. Or at least since the Targaryens unified the continent. A handful of roughly year-long wars across an entire century, for a kingdom with a size and population comparable to all of Europe, is very little. The demographic impact that these conflicts had ought to have been minimal. 

The epidemics and winters on the other hand, that's definitely a different question. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We should all keep in mind that numbers cannot be stable. The population of Westeros at the time of the Conquest isn't the same as the population of Westeros in 128 AC after two great Targaryen kings had given the Realm eighty years of peace and prosperity.

Winter in combination with and and/or epidemics should cull the population of the land to very high degree. Just take the Dance and its aftermath as an example. It was the worst war during the history of the Targaryen reign - and perhaps even the worst war in the history of Westeros - but the catastrophe did not end in 131 AC when Aegon III took the throne. The war would have destroyed much food provisions for winter, and the winter that began in 130 AC continued for six years. In addition, the entirety of Westeros was apparently devastated by the Winter Fever which carried many prominent people away everywhere in the Realm (we know of deaths in White Harbor and KL).

Westeros could easily have lost half its population - first to the war, then to cold and starvation, and finally to the Winter Fever - when Aegon III finally began ruling in his own right.

Another example would be the Great Spring Sickness. It hit the entire Realm aside from the Vale and Dorne, and it is quite clear that all the regions effected by this plague would be able to field significantly less men after the Great Spring Sickness than before - and this actually for quite a long time depending how many boys/young men and fertile young girls/women were carried away by the sickness. If that percentage was exceptionally high then it would take long years before the population would recover. I mean, in the real middle ages the loss of entire villages and cities to the Black Death would severely effect the military potential of those regions, too. Army sizes would inevitably be much smaller if we assume the society is still capable of waging a war.

Just think about how many people died of the Great Spring Sickness in King's Landing alone. Perhaps the plague was worst in cities but we don't know how many people died in rural regions, so this is really difficult to say. But the fact that Dorne and the Vale closed all its borders suggests that the Great Spring Sickness spread everywhere where people traveled, so you wouldn't be safe in the remotest hut unless you had no contact at all to the outside world (and that's not very likely).

Aside from war and unusual epidemics like the Winter Fever or the Great Spring Sickness the North should be the place where the numbers of the population fluctuate the most depending whether there is a good or a bad winter. A long winter will inevitably cull the population to a stronger degree than a short winter. Children and old people would suffer the hardest in winters in any case, and if the winter is long and hard then an entire generation might not see the next spring. We know that if things get really hard mothers kill their children (to spare them the inevitable death of starvation and to secure the survival of the family) and old men go 'off hunting'.

In addition we also have to keep in mind that war and conflict might have affected the population statistics of the southern kingdoms more than those of the North prior to the Conquest. Kingdoms like the Riverlands and the Reach would have known a lot of war, and there is little reason to assume that enemy kingdoms would be willing to sell grain and food to its neighbor if they had just fought a war in the past autumn. Any war in autumn which affect the stored food stores and the last harvest could have had devastating effects on the population of such a kingdom in the next winter - especially if that winter lasted for 5-6 years. One has also to keep in mind that war sees a lot of houses and buildings destroyed, resulting in a growing number of homeless people in the years thereafter. If war is fought in autumn or extends into winter (like the Dance did, for example) all those homeless people will inevitably die of the cold even if there would technically be enough food left to feed them for some time.

Perhaps the North had had a great time for decades or an entire century prior to the Conquest, explaining why Torrhen Stark was able and willing to raise an army of 30,000 men. If there had been many mild winters, little internal unrest, and little to no attempts by the Southron kingdoms to attack the North they would have had little to no losses to war - and only minor to standard losses in winter.

But we know that the history of the North in the last hundred years was not exactly favorable. The Starks had losses in two major wars (Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion), and prior to that there was a series of many incursions and tragedies in the last century as well about which effects on the population we know little about (the Great Spring Sickness, Dagon Greyjoy's attacks, the Skagos Rebellion, Raymun Redbeard's invasion, the six-year-winter from 230-236 AC, etc.).

Thanks to the two recent wars Robb might have had less men able to fight at his disposal than Ned had back when he called his banners 282 AC. After all, many childless men did not return to father sons of their own.

Vice versa, the Reach seems to have gotten pretty much unscathed out of the last two wars prior to the War of the Five Kings, potentially explaining how the hell Renly could raise such a huge host. But back in the day of the Conquest neither the Gardeners nor the Lannisters might have been able to feed as many people as both regions later could feed under the Targaryens (because the endless warfare continuously destroyed much of their fertile farmland and prevented them from storing as much food for winter as they could in later days).

Those things do matter. It makes no sense to use the numbers of the armies during the Conquest to try to determine the military potential of the various regions three centuries later. And the assumption that the numbers remain static doesn't make any sense. Not since George introduced variables like epidemics, hard winters, and starvation due to a lack of food.

This is interesting and potentially valid speculation, but it is based on so many unknowns that it cannot really answer the question as to which of the North or the South suffered more from the Targaryen era. The North seems to have been largely left out of the dynastic struggles that plagued the South under the Targaryens. When the North did partake, it was only by sending some warriors down South, and never did their actual population suffer as a result. Their peasants were left completely untouched by the Dance of the Dragons or any of the Blackfyre rebellions.

In any case, while interesting to ponder on, it seems an answer to a question that does not exist. Because it seems to be based on a need to justify why the North today cannot raise the same strength as Torhenn could 300 years ago. Why the need to address that question, when we have not seen the full strength of the North yet?

Martin himself stated that the North takes much longer to raise their strength, and that if it is Harvest time that the lords are far more hesitant to anser their liege lord's call. Robb himself stated that he could wait no longer when he marched from Winterfell, signifying that he was pressed for time.

Look at it this way:

Robb crossed the Neck with 19500 men.

Rodrik raised 2000 more men at Winterfell in a hurry to repel the Ironborn from Torhenn Square.

Bolton has 8000 men with him at Winterfell in Dance, of which 1500 are Freys and 4000 are from Robb's original host, giving us about 2500 additional Northern forces not previously counted.  Considering the large number of prominent lords gathered at the wedding, all it would take is a modest honour guard from each attending major lord to make up that 2500, especially if it already includes Ramsay's 600 from the Dreadfort garrison.

Stannis has "5000 men and growing every day" with him in Dance, of which at most 1500 are southron knights, giving us close to 4000 new Northern troops.

The Umbers and Karstarks have between them about 800-1000 additional men outside of Winterfell and in the Wolfswood.

The Ryswells and Dustins raised an army to repel the Ironmen on the Fever River, which has not been counted precisely, but given Lady Dustin's comments we know that she kept substantial numbers back from Robb. So this could easily number in the 2000 range or more.

All of the above already brings us to 30,000 troops, and that is without any substantial number from Lord Manderly yet. Manderly has lost 2000 men to date, and even the most conservative estimate of his strength must give him at least 5000 in total, meaning he has around 3000 left at least. (He may have a LOT more than that, but let's leave it at 3000 for the sake of this conservative argument). And that is before he started his recruitment drive as witnessed by Davos in White Harbor.

So that brings us very close to 35k already, without counting Skagos, which surely must number at least twice Bear Island's number, given it comparative size and location.

Frankly, 35k is very easily achievable, under the most conservative of Northern estimates. So why the need to try and justify a weaker North than in Torhenn's time? It is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

Robb crossed the Neck with 19500 men.

Correct

Quote

Rodrik raised 2000 more men at Winterfell in a hurry to repel the Ironborn from Torhenn Square.

Correct, from the Winterfell, Manderly, Cerwyn, Karstark, Tallhart, Hornwood and Flint lands.

Furthermore we know that many of the new 'men' Rodrik raised were untrained children. There really needs to be a distinction between actual men trained for war and handing a spear too anyone capable of holding it.

Quote

Bolton has 8000 men with him at Winterfell in Dance,

Does he?

"How many men does Bolton have at Winterfell?"

"Five thousand. Six. More." He gave the king a ghastly grin, all shattered teeth and splinters. "More than you."

Quote

 

Stannis has "5000 men and growing every day" with him in Dance, of which at most 1500 are southron knights, giving us close to 4000 new Northern troops.

Not exactly new troops. We know that he inherited some of the survivor from the Battle of Winterfell

...survivors from the battle outside the gates of Winterfell, men once sworn to the Hornwoods, the Cerwyns, and the Tallharts. We are five thousand strong as I write

Which GRRM indicates was not as bloody as thought

Most of the leaders of Ser Rodrik's host were slain, but a good many of the common soldiers survived and have doubtless straggled back to their villages and holdfasts, spreading tales as they go.

And again, a portion of the Mountain Clans don't seem to be actual soldiers but men leaving home to sacrifice themselves so others will survive the winter.

Quote

The Umbers and Karstarks have between them about 800-1000 additional men outside of Winterfell and in the Wolfswood.

The Karstarks have 450, we have no idea how many men Whoresbane had

It was Whoresbane Umber who had the men, inside the castle. I saw them too. Old men, every one." Theon tittered. "Mors took the green boys and Hother took the greybeards. All the real men went with the Greatjon and died at the Red Wedding. Is that what you wanted to know, Your Grace?"

 

Quote

The Ryswells and Dustins raised an army to repel the Ironmen on the Fever River,which has not been counted precisely, but given Lady Dustin's comments we know that she kept substantial numbers back from Robb. So this could easily number in the 2000 range or more.

Substantial? We don't know anything of the sort. We are seeing high profile Lords like the Umbers and Karstarks raise armies of hundreds rather than thousands. 1k may well be a 'substantial' in the North right now. 

It also appears that you may be double counting, surely you counted this '2k' twice considering they are likely to be at Winterfell with Roose.

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

I guess I can answer your question easily. I don't think Torrhen Stark would have depopulated the North to the degree that only about 5,000 men would remain to protect it. The North is a vast lands with thousands of miles pretty much unguarded coast land. Marching 30,000 men down south could easily cost him his entire kingdom should he suffer a major defeat down there, and Aegon Targaryen (or any other enemy) decide to make use of that advantage.

Not to mention that a wise King in the North would also take into account that some people need to stay back to help the Night's Watch should they get into trouble.

If Torrhen Stark marched to war with 30,000 men then my guess is that this cannot have been near the full potential of the troops the North could muster at this time.

By the way, we don't know that there was no fighting in the North during any of the Blackfyre Rebellions. There doesn't seem to have been fighting in the North during the First Rebellion, but there could have been during the Third. We don't know anything about that war, after all.

But the northern peasants clearly suffered during the Dance because most of the people marching south would have been male smallfolk who were then not back home helping bring in the harvest (that would most have affected those regions from which the Winter Wolves under Roderick Dustin came since Cregan Stark had the sense to bring in the harvest before calling his banners and march to war).

And even if we assume the 'big conflicts' never troubled the North at all it had its own problems. The invasion under Raymun Redbeard could actually have been pretty devastating in the northern regions (wildlings are not prone to not plunder and destroy, one assumes), and we have as of yet no clue if the Skagos Rebellion took only place on Skagos. If the Skagos invaded or retaliated against the lands near the island this could have been pretty devastating, too.

47 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

Not that many people ought to have died in either of those wars. mainly because they were so short. Both the Greyjoy Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion only lasted for around a year each, which is barely anything. 

Westeros in general seems to have been rather peaceful compared to the real medieval world, actually. Or at least since the Targaryens unified the continent. A handful of roughly year-long wars across an entire century, for a kingdom with a size and population comparable to all of Europe, is very little. The demographic impact that these conflicts had ought to have been minimal. 

The epidemics and winters on the other hand, that's definitely a different question. 

Yeah, the shortness of the wars makes them very unrealistic indeed. The Dance should have been Westeros' equivalent to the Thirty Years' War, taking at least five to ten years, or so. I had hoped George would make the best of the numbers and make the Dance effectively a war stretching over three years (if it had begun in the very beginning of 129 AC and only ended in the last month of 131 AC that could have worked) rather than only two years.

But I'm with you that most of the wars after the Conquest (even the Conquest itself) didn't kill all that many people.

@thelittledragonthatcould

You are right that a lot of the 'warriors' used right now in the conflict in the North wouldn't actually be considered soldier material under normal circumstances. Most of these people were left back home by Robb for a reason - they were too young or too old to be of much use in a war.

The only regions in which able men may have remained in sufficient numbers seem to be the Dreadfort (Roose's garrison was apparently made up of very capable men-at-arms but I don't think there is much untapped potential in the entire lands controlled by the Boltons), White Harbor (because the Manderlys cannot afford to draft most of the people they need to keep their city functioning), the mountain clans (which don't seem to have sent any men to Robb, if I'm not mistaken), and the Barrowlands (because Lady Dustin deliberately kept men back).

All the other regions should just have green boys and greybeards left, just as the Karstarks and the Umbers do. Some remote regions might have some people in fighting age left but we don't know if they will come forth now. Those leaving in the regions that were hit by the Ironborn would have lost even more men of fighting age (we don't actually know what has transpired in the Tallhart lands in the recent past).

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Correct

Correct, from the Winterfell, Manderly, Cerwyn, Karstark, Tallhart, Hornwood and Flint lands.

Furthermore we know that many of the new 'men' Rodrik raised were untrained children. There really needs to be a distinction between actual men trained for war and handing too anyone capable of holding it.

Does he?

"How many men does Bolton have at Winterfell?"

"Five thousand. Six. More." He gave the king a ghastly grin, all shattered teeth and splinters. "More than you."

Not exactly new troops. We know that he inherited some of the survivor from the Battle of Winterfell

...survivors from the battle outside the gates of Winterfell, men once sworn to the Hornwoods, the Cerwyns, and the Tallharts. We are five thousand strong as I write

Which GRRM indicates was not as bloody as thought

Most of the leaders of Ser Rodrik's host were slain, but a good many of the common soldiers survived and have doubtless straggled back to their villages and holdfasts, spreading tales as they go.

And again, a portion of the Mountain Clans don't seem to be actual soldiers but men leaving home to sacrifice themselves so others will survive the winter.

The Karstarks have 450, we have no idea how many men Whoresbane had

It was Whoresbane Umber who had the men, inside the castle. I saw them too. Old men, every one." Theon tittered. "Mors took the green boys and Hother took the greybeards. All the real men went with the Greatjon and died at the Red Wedding. Is that what you wanted to know, Your Grace?"

 

Substantial? We don't know anything of the sort. We are seeing high profile Lords like the Umbers and Karstarks raise armies of hundreds rather than thousands. 1k may well be a 'substantial' in the North right now. 

It also appears that you may be double counting, surely you counted this '2k' twice considering they are likely to be at Winterfell with Roose.

Firstly, let me say that if the intention is to assess every number at its lowest level possible, you are doing an admirable job. That said, I believe you are stretching that scepticism too far.

Let's look at a few examples:

Regarding Stannis's host: He got between two and three thousand from the Mountain Clans. Surely a reasonable assessment of that would be about 2500 - halfway between Jon's upper and lower estimates. He surely got a number in the hundreds from the Mormonts, let's be conservative and say 300, which burned the Ironborn ships. So that takes us to 2800. Now the remainder of Northmen were not exclusively from Rodriks old host, it also included men from the Wolfswood. Furthermore, If Rodrik had 2000 men, and the host was scattered, with some killed, how many would realistically be gathered again by Stannis at Deepwood Motte? Surely no more than half, likely less. So at the very least, we are looking at 3000 new Northmen with Stannis, and possibly more.

So let's call it 3000 new Northmen with Stannis.

As for Bolton, he had 4000 men from Robb's host, and 1500 Freys. That already takes him to 5500 without a single additional Northmen added to Robb's original host. We know Ramsay had 600 new veteran troops already from the Dreadfort. Manderly brought a few hundred, so did Hother Umber - assuming he and Crowfood split their forces roughly equally between them.

Frankly, if each major lord in attendance just brought a couple of hundred men, added to Ramsay's 600 you already have 2500 extra men.

Anyway, let's look at Lady Dustin's statement. She says she sent as few as she dared without making Robb suspicious. Karstark was very eager to go to war and brought as many men as possible, and even he brought only 2300 out of 2800. In fact, if House Karstark also contributed substantially to Rodrik's host, say 200 men out of the 2000, then their full strength is in fact 3000, not 2800. Which means that Karstark brought about three quarters of his full strength to Robb. And he was an enthusiastic bannerman, eager for glory and plunder according to his daughter. So it seems likely that Lady Dustin - the opposite of enthusiastic or eager for war - could have limited her contribution to 50%, if even Karstark only sent 75%.

Meaning if she is of similar strength to Karstark - which seems highly likely - that she could have 1500 left easily. Add the Ryswells and a combined strength of 2000 is very conservative.

Lastly, your suggestion that green boys and old men should not be counted should then apply to the Lannisters as well, who only got to maybe 40k after including the sweepings from the bowels of Lannisport.

Let's be realistic here. While it is possible to view every Northern number at the lowest conceivable number - due to some desire to downplay the North's strength to the minimum number imaginable - it is equally possible to overestimate the North and put at 60k or whatever some suggest. I think a middle ground answer is 40-45k, which is exactly where the RPG pegged them all those years ago.

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

I guess I can answer your question easily. I don't think Torrhen Stark would have depopulated the North to the degree that only about 5,000 men would remain to protect it. The North is a vast lands with thousands of miles pretty much unguarded coast land. Marching 30,000 men down south could easily cost him his entire kingdom should he suffer a major defeat down there, and Aegon Targaryen (or any other enemy) decide to make use of that advantage.

Not to mention that a wise King in the North would also take into account that some people need to stay back to help the Night's Watch should they get into trouble.

If Torrhen Stark marched to war with 30,000 men then my guess is that this cannot have been near the full potential of the troops the North could muster at this time.

 

@thelittledragonthatcould

You are right that a lot of the 'warriors' used right now in the conflict in the North wouldn't actually be considered soldier material under normal circumstances. Most of these people were left back home by Robb for a reason - they were too young or too old to be of much use in a war.

The only regions in which able men may have remained in sufficient numbers seem to be the Dreadfort (Roose's garrison was apparently made up of very capable men-at-arms but I don't think there is much untapped potential in the entire lands controlled by the Boltons), White Harbor (because the Manderlys cannot afford to draft most of the people they need to keep their city functioning), the mountain clans (which don't seem to have sent any men to Robb, if I'm not mistaken), and the Barrowlands (because Lady Dustin deliberately kept men back).

All the other regions should just have green boys and greybeards left, just as the Karstarks and the Umbers do. Some remote regions might have some people in fighting age left but we don't know if they will come forth now. Those leaving in the regions that were hit by the Ironborn would have lost even more men of fighting age (we don't actually know what has transpired in the Tallhart lands in the recent past).

I fully agree that Torhenn did not march his full strength down South. And that the North's historic full strength is therefore in the 40-45k range.

But I disagree that Robb could not have raised a similar strength of 30k, if he waited until after the Harvest. He already raised 20k in a short space of time DESPITE the Harvest continuing. And I'm saying that even after raising 30k, he should have a similar number to leave behind that Torhenn left behind.

We must be clear that the references to green boys and greybeards apply only to the two most enthusiastic and militaristic lords in Robb's army - the Umbers and Karstarks. There is no indication that any of the following are down to old men or green boys:

Manderly

Dustin

Ryswell

Tallhart

Glover

Hornwood

Bolton

Flint of Widow's Watch

Locke

Reed

Flint of Flint's Finger

The Mountain Clans 

Mormont

None of those Houses are confirmed to be in similar state to Houses Umber or Karstark. And of course, Skagos is not even counted yet at all.

EDIT

And I would add that it would be rather extraordinary if the Karstarks at 3000 men raised to date, from their lands in the colder northern part of the North, is disproportionately more powerful than most of the other Northern Houses. We see that the Mountain Clans from their cold inhospitable Mountains are of similar strength. The Umbers - based on their prominence - must be close to that strength too. And  it seems quite likely that the likes of the Dustins and Ryswells must at the very least be of similar strength, and likely stronger, while the Boltons and Manderlys are considerably stronger.

The one Northern House that we have a definitive strength of, is located in the cold north of the Kingdom, and has a strength of 3000. Why would that be deemed a disproportionally high strength for a Northern House?

 

[Protagoras]

Personally, I think all these numbers should be seen as potentials. Talking about a maximum is not particularly relevant if it´s completely unrealistic that some regions will send soldiers (Skagos), some leaders wont have the same support (Robb/Torrhen), some regions are disorganized (Riverlands) and some regions are dependent on weather and season harder than others (The North/Dorne especially). In addition, there will be a difference between the numbers you can use in a defensive war and the numbers you are able to project outside your border. It should also be pointed out that a sailor on a warship is NOT a warrior unless Ironborn. 

My list therefore will try to reflect this and put a difference between maximum and minimum. What ideally should be discussed in addition to this is the troop quality and equipment (money is the real factor often, not able bodies). 

The Reach: 80k-120k

The Westerlands: 45k-60k

The North: 35k-55k

The Vale: 35k-50k

The Riverlands: 30k-50k

The Stormlands: 25k-35k

Dorne: 20k-40k

The Iron islands: 20k-30k

Crownlands + Dragonstone: 5k-20k

[Nittanian]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 the mountain clans (which don't seem to have sent any men to Robb, if I'm not mistaken)

Some are mentioned in ASOS before the Red Wedding.

Quote

"I delayed too long before leaving Harrenhal. Aenys Frey departed several days before me and crossed the Trident at the ruby ford, though not without difficulty. But by the time we came up the river was a torrent. I had no choice but to ferry my men across in small boats, of which we had too few. Two-thirds of my strength was on the north side when the Lannisters attacked those still waiting to cross. Norrey, Locke, and Burley men chiefly, with Ser Wylis Manderly and his White Harbor knights as rear guard. I was on the wrong side of the Trident, powerless to help them. Ser Wylis rallied our men as best he could, but Gregor Clegane attacked with heavy horse and drove them into the river. As many drowned as were cut down. More fled, and the rest were taken captive." (ASOS Catelyn VI)

 

Quote

Firepits had been dug outside the feast tents, sheltered beneath rude canopies of woven wood and hides that kept the rain out, so long as it fell straight down. The wind was blowing off the river, though, so the drizzle came in anyway, enough to make the fires hiss and swirl. Serving men were turning joints of meat on spits above the flames. The smells made Arya's mouth water. "Shouldn't we stop?" she asked Sandor Clegane. "There's northmen in the tents." She knew them by their beards, by their faces, by their cloaks of bearskin and sealskin, by their half-heard toasts and the songs they sang; Karstarks and Umbers and men of the mountain clans. "I bet there are Winterfell men too." Her father's men, the Young Wolf's men, the direwolves of Stark. (ASOS Arya X)

 

[Lord Varys]

13 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

Some are mentioned in ASOS before the Red Wedding.

Thanks, didn't have that on the radar. But it couldn't have been all that many or else Stannis couldn't have collected his 3,000 men from the clans. Jon Snow based his calculations on their potential, not their potential after the cream of their men had already marched down with Robb.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lastly, your suggestion that green boys and old men should not be counted should then apply to the Lannisters as well, who only got to maybe 40k after including the sweepings from the bowels of Lannisport.

Which is precisely why I said 40k in my original post.

Tywin and Jaime had over 35k in the Riverlands, I don't really include the majority of the army at Oxcross as they are Green Boys, though some are actual soldiers but do include the thousands of actual soldiers still remaining Garrisoning the various settlements around the Westerlands including Lannisport, a city much larger than White Harbor that would requite more professional soldiers.

Quote

Let's be realistic here. While it is possible to view every Northern number at the lowest conceivable number - due to some desire to downplay the North's strength to the minimum number imaginable

I have actually not done that. I have actually included far more unknown Northern soldiers than I have for the Westerlands or Riverlands.

Quote

 

- it is equally possible to overestimate the North and put at 60k or whatever some suggest. I think a middle ground answer is 40-45k, which is exactly where the RPG pegged them all those years ago.

But I am basing my numbers on what we have seen. I am not overestimating the amounts for any other region so why should I do the same for the North?

And considering that we have more information on the North and their Lords than any other region than it is hard to quantify the North having 40-45k. Robb, Cat, Rodrik, Theon and even Balon would have commented on more than half the North's military presence still being in the North.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

We must be clear that the references to green boys and greybeards apply only to the two most enthusiastic and militaristic lords in Robb's army - the Umbers and Karstarks. There is no indication that any of the following are down to old men or

Sure there is. Just look at the information we get of House Hornwood

And that night, as he sat to supper, a horn sounded to herald the arrival of another guest. Lady Donella Hornwood brought no tail of knights and retainers; only herself, and six tired men-at-arms with a moosehead badge on their dusty orange livery.

Hornwood is also depleted of men, which is clear from how they could not defend themselves and how she needs protection from Rodrik (and yet a further indication of how strapped the North is for men is that he can't help her)

And now that my lord husband and my sweet son have gone to the gods, the Bastard looks at my lands hungrily."

Bran wanted to give the lady a hundred men to defend her rights, but Ser Rodrik only said, "He may look, but should he do more I promise you there will be dire retribution. You will be safe enough, my lady

 

The North (White Harbor and possibly Barrowton are exceptions) was depleted of capable warriors when Robb went North. That 20k hard a huge impact on the safety of the North. Just as the Westerlands had a significant impact when there 35k+ army left them. If anyone claimed the Westerlands could raise another 35k+ on top of that I would find that equally ridiculous.

[Lord Varys]

We should assume that Robb was able to draw more men from the southern reaches of the North near Winterfell than he could draw from the distant reaches. For example, I don't think anyone living on Sea Dragon Point joined his host. But then, we don't know how many people live up there or who rules over them.

Exceptions seem to be the glory-hungry Karstarks and Umbers who really marched down in the full strength. The mountains clans didn't send as many men. But the Tallharts, Glovers, Hornwoods, and Cerwyns really seemed to try to outdo each other with the number of men they raised.

And we have to keep in mind that the western coast suffered additional losses during the Ironborn attacks.

If we turn out eye to the story development then the days of horsed warfare are pretty much over for the North anyway. Winter has come. Armies are now either completely incapable to march or will get themselves killed if they try to march. The northern garrons can yet cope with the snows, but Stannis and the Boltons faced an autumn storm, not a winter storm. There is no chance that anyone in the North is going to ride to war in winter.

And marching on foot would people get killed even more quickly considering that they would have no means to transport provisions or reach their destination before they have frozen to death. In that sense, it wouldn't matter even if the North could raise another 20,000 men. They would not be able to make difference.

I actually really wonder how George is going to continue to tell his story in light of all that...

Perhaps conventional warfare can continue for quite some time in the Reach, the Stormlands, and Dorne, but if I'm not very much mistaken then ADwD marked the beginning of the end of it in the North.